Systems and methods for visualizing arguments

• US 20070005520A1
• Filed: 01/12/2006
• Published: 01/04/2007
• Est. Priority Date: 03/04/2005
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: SSS Research, Inc.
• Original Assignee: SSS Research, Inc.
• Inventors: Eick, Stephen, Cluxton, Diane, Eick, M.
• Application Number:
  US11/331,309
• Publication Number:
  US 20070005520A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 706/12
• CPC Class Codes: G06N 7/01 Probabilistic graphical models, e.g. probabilistic networks

Abstract

Hypotheses are questions of interest to an observer. Evidence are facts that establish or disprove hypotheses or sub-hypotheses. Inferences are logical links that connect facts to hypotheses as evidence. An argument is a set of facts linked by inferences to support or disprove a given hypothesis. Hypotheses, sub-hypothesis, facts, evidence, inference and arguments are visualized using a plurality of interrelated graphical user interfaces. A main visualization screen includes a fact visualization portion, a hypothesis visualization portion and an argument construction visualization portion. The evidence visualization portion comprises an evidence display portion, an evidence details portion and visualization selection widgets that allow different evidence visualization or marshaling techniques to be applied to visualize the facts. The argument construction visualization potion allows hypotheses, sub-hypotheses and conjectures to be associated into an argument, facts to be associated and inference links to be added to link the facts to various ones of the hypotheses.

Claims

1. An argument visualization graphical user interface, comprising:

a hypothesis overview portion;

an evidence marshalling portion; and

an argument construction portion.

2. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 1, wherein the hypothesis overview portion;

the evidence marshalling portion and the argument construction portion are combined into a hypothesis visualization tab.

3. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 2, further comprising at least one of an argument visualization tab, a hypotheses analyzer tab, a time analysis tab, and a hypotheses relationship tab.

4. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 1, wherein the hypothesis overview portion includes:

a hypothesis region usable to display at least one main hypothesis; and

a sub-hypothesis region usable to display at least one sub-hypothesis linkable to at least one of a main hypothesis displayed in the hypothesis portion and another sub-hypothesis displayed in the sub-hypothesis region.

5. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 4, wherein the hypothesis overview portion further includes at least one inference link that links one sub-hypothesis to one of a main hypothesis displayed in the hypothesis portion and another sub-hypothesis displayed in the sub-hypothesis region.

6. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 4, wherein the hypothesis overview portion further includes a conjecture region usable to display at least one conjecture.

7. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 1, wherein the evidence marshalling portion is usable to view facts and evidence and relationships between facts.

8. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 1, wherein the evidence marshalling portion includes:

at least two selection widgets, wherein each selection widget applies a different visualization to at least one of facts and evidence;

a visualization area usable to display the selected visualization selected using one of the at least two selection widgets; and

a description portion that is usable to display a description associated with a selected fact or evidence element.

9. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 8, wherein the evidence marshalling portion further includes at least two action widgets, wherein, when one of the at least two action widgets is selected, an action associated with the selected action widget is performed relative to the visualization displayed in the visualization area.

10. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 8, wherein the at least two selection widgets include at least two of:

a list visualization selection widget usable to select a list visualization;

a search visualization selection widget usable to select a search visualization;

a link analysis visualization selection widget usable to select a link analysis visualization; and

a timeline visualization selection widget usable to select a timeline visualization.

11. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 1, wherein the argument construction portion is usable to associate evidence and inferential links with various hypotheses and sub-hypotheses to create an argument.

12. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 1, wherein the argument construction portion includes:

an argument editing portion usable to display and construct an argument an argument; and

at least two action widgets, wherein, when one of the at least two action widgets is selected, an action associated with the selected action widget is performed relative to the argument displayed in the argument editing portion.

13. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 12, wherein the argument displayed in the argument editing portion includes:

a hypothesis;

zero, one or more sub-hypotheses;

at least one evidentiary fact; and

at least one inferential link, each inferential link extending between one of;

the hypothesis and a sub-hypothesis,

the hypothesis and an evidentiary fact that directly supports the hypothesis,

a first sub-hypotheses and a second sub-hypothesis,

a sub-hypothesis and an evidentiary fact that supports that sub-hypothesis, and

another inferential link and an evidentiary fact that supports that inferential link.

14. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 13, wherein an appearance of an inferential link indicates whether the inference supports or contradicts the hypothesis.

15. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 13, wherein the at least two action widgets include at least two of:

an add evidence action widget that allows evidentiary facts to be added to a Wigmore argument form and inferential links from the added evidentiary facts to be created;

an add sub-hypothesis action widget that allows sub-hypotheses to be added to a Wigmore argument form and inferential links from the added sub-hypotheses to be created;

an add data action widget that allows data elements to be added to a Toulmin argument form;

an add rebuttal action widget that allows rebuttal elements to be added to a Toulmin argument form;

a select Toulmin form action widget that causes the argument to be visualized using a Toulmin argument form; and

a select Wigmore form action widget that causes the argument to be visualized using a Wigmore argument form.

16. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 1, wherein the hypotheses analyzer tab comprises:

a selected hypothesis region usable to display at least one selected hypothesis of an argument being visualized using the argument visualization graphical user interface;

a fact element region usable to display at least one fact item of the an argument being visualized using the argument visualization graphical user interface; and

a control region usable to, wherein;

the fact element region includes a grid visualization, where each of the at least one fact item is associated with a row of the grid visualization and each of the at least one selected hypothesis is associated with a column of the grid visualization.

17. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 16, wherein the grid visualization includes a plurality of cells, each cell associated with a corresponding fact item and a corresponding selected hypothesis and displaying information relevant the corresponding fact and the corresponding hypothesis.

18. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 17, wherein the control region comprises at least some of:

a hypothesis selection widget usable to controllably select and deselect various ones of the hypotheses of the argument being visualized using the argument visualization graphical user interface;

a score function selection widget usable to select between a plurality of different scoring functions used to generate a score for each selected hypothesis;

a cell visualization widget usable to select a type of information to be displayed in the cells of the grid visualization;

a residual value selection widget usable to select a residual hypothesis, where each fact item not associated with any selected hypothesis is associated with the residual hypothesis;

a relevance-strength selection widget usable to select a basis for displaying in the cells of the grid visualization the information relevant to the corresponding facts and the corresponding hypotheses; and

a depth display widget usable to display a depth at which the corresponding fact is linked to the corresponding hypothesis.

19. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 16, wherein the selected hypothesis region comprises at least one sub-region, each sub-region associated with one selected hypothesis and displaying:

a name of that selected hypothesis;

a score for that selected hypothesis; and

a scoring graph element for that hypothesis.

20. The argument visualization graphical user interface of claim 19, wherein the score for each selected hypothesis is determined using Bayesian belief networks.

21. A method for visualizing an argument, comprising:

defining at least one hypothesis;

determining, for each of at least some of the at least one defined hypothesis, if that hypothesis supports at least one other defined hypothesis;

creating a link for each hypothesis determined to support at least one other defined hypothesis, between that hypothesis and each of at least one other defined hypothesis that hypothesis was determined to support;

defining at least one fact;

determining, for each of at least some of the defined facts, if that fact is relevant to at least one of the at least one defined hypothesis;

assigning a credibility value to at least some of the defined facts;

creating a link for each fact determined to be relevant to at least one hypothesis, between that fact and each of at least one hypothesis that fact was determined to be relevant to;

defining a relevance value to each created link;

displaying, for each of at least one defined hypothesis, an acyclic directed graph of that hypothesis, created links that connect other defined hypotheses or defined fact to that defined hypothesis, and the linked other defined hypotheses and the linked defined facts; and

determining a score value for each at least one defined hypothesis based on the displayed acyclic directed graph.